Sexual Violence: Vulnerable Victims

Alun Cairns: To ask the Attorney-General what steps the Crown Prosecution Service is taking to support vulnerable witnesses in cases of sexual violence and abuse.

Oliver Heald: It is vital to ensure that vulnerable witnesses are able to give their evidence effectively. The range of special measures offered to vulnerable witnesses, includes giving evidence by way of live link, video recorded evidence in chief and screens in court.
	There is also a comprehensive network of joint police/CPS witness care units.

Vulnerable Witnesses

Stuart Andrew: To ask the Attorney-General what special measures Crown Prosecution Service prosecutors may offer to vulnerable witnesses to support them in giving evidence.

Oliver Heald: It is vital to ensure that vulnerable witnesses are able to give their evidence effectively. The range of special measures offered to vulnerable witnesses, includes giving evidence by way of live link, video recorded evidence in chief and screens in court.
	There is also a comprehensive network of joint police/CPS witness care units.

Crown Prosecution Service

Emily Thornberry: To ask the Attorney-General how many cautions the Crown Prosecution Service has approved for indictable-only offences in each quarter since 2008.

Oliver Heald: The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) does not hold central records showing the number of cautions approved for indictable only offences. This information could be obtained only by examining all of the files where a caution has been approved, which would incur disproportionate cost.
	A table containing information on the total number of pre-charge cautions authorised for all offences, rather than just indictable only offences, has been deposited in the Library of the House along with a table showing the number of indictable only cases that were dropped post-charge in favour of a caution. Information has been split between simple and conditional caution for ease of reference.
	Official data showing the number of simple cautions issued is contained within the official statistics relating to sentencing, criminal court proceedings and offenders brought to justice, maintained and issued by the Ministry of Justice (MOJ).

Crown Prosecution Service

Emily Thornberry: To ask the Attorney-General what steps the Crown Prosecution Service is taking to improve its internal anti-fraud controls at (a) its west midlands division and (b) all other regional divisions.

Oliver Heald: Following the discovery of fraudulent payments to a supplier in its West Midlands Area the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) immediately commissioned investigations to ascertain the extent of the fraudulent activity, how the prescribed controls were circumvented and whether the controls were being applied correctly in other parts of the organisation.
	These investigations are ongoing. When they have concluded the findings will be reported and, if appropriate, recommendations on changes to the control framework will be implemented across the CPS. These recommendations will be considered in light of recent events and implemented as necessary.
	At the same time it commissioned investigations; the CPS put in place a number of additional mechanisms to ensure that all transactions originating from west midlands were subject to additional scrutiny and to gain assurance over the regularity of expenditure. The CPS has also sought assurance from all area and HQ business managers that, controls are being applied effectively and in accordance with the departmental guidance.

Crown Prosecution Service

Emily Thornberry: To ask the Attorney-General pursuant to the answer of 18 March 2013, Official Report, column 364W, on the Crown Prosecution Service, what the average sum agreed as financial consideration for entering into a confidentiality clause was in respect of the compromise agreements referred to in the answer; and what the total cost to the Crown Prosecution Service has been of entering into these agreements.

Oliver Heald: Not all compromise agreements since 2010 have included a specific financial consideration for confidentiality. For those that did, the average sum was £214.
	The total cost to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) of entering into compromise agreements during this period is £2,478,033,

Armed Forces: Electoral Register

Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps his Department is taking to raise awareness amongst the military community of voting registration procedures.

Michael Moore: The Government is committed to members of the armed forces being able to take their full part in the democratic process, in accordance with the armed forces covenant.
	The Ministry of Defence works closely with the Cabinet Office and the Electoral Commission to raise awareness of voting registration procedures, including through an annual campaign to promote service voter registration. As part of the annual campaign, a defence instruction notice is issued, and its key messages reinforced at unit level through posted routine orders. In addition, unit registration officers are expected to hold service registration days at all units.

Crime Prevention: Rural Areas

Anne McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps she is taking to reduce rural crime; and if she will make a statement.

Jeremy Browne: The Government recognises that rural communities are vulnerable to certain crimes. The election of police and crime commissioners has given rural communities a stronger voice in determining local policing priorities. We are also giving the public more street-level information about crime on a monthly basis so they have the information they need to hold local forces to account.

Entry Clearances: Overseas Students

Dominic Raab: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the announcement of 12 December 2012 that from April 2013, PhD students who have completed their studies will be allowed to stay in Britain for 12 months after they have completed their PhD before having to find a job or start a business, what procedures will be required to extend a visa; whether those extending a visa in this way will have to apply for a new visa; whether biometric information or a passport will need to be submitted as part of such an application; what fees applicants will need to pay; and what timeframe will be required for such an application.

Mark Harper: holding answer 7 March 2013
	On 14 March 2013 I laid a written ministerial statement in Parliament outlining a number of changes to the immigration rules. These will come into effect on 6 April and include changes to tier 4 to allow completing PhD students to stay in the UK for one year beyond the end of their course to find skilled work or to set up as an entrepreneur. Full details are available in the Statement of Changes to Immigration Rules (HC1039), a copy of which has been places in the Library of the House.
	The Home Office and the UK Border Agency have worked with the higher education sector to produce guidance on how the policy will be implemented. Amendments to the Tier 4 guidance will be published on the UK Border Agency website on 6 April 2013.

Immigration: Greater London

Steve Reed: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 7 March 2013, Official Report, column 1174W, on immigration: Croydon, how many older line cases unit live cohort cases are outstanding in postal codes (a) SE19, (b) SE25, (c) SW16, (d) CR0 and (e) CR7 and (f) the London borough of Croydon.

Mark Harper: holding answer 18 March 2013
	The number of older live cases outstanding in the named post codes and in the London borough of Croydon is as follows:
	(a) SE19: 31 cases
	(b) SE25: 90 cases
	(c) SW16: 165 cases
	(d) CRO: 285 cases
	(e) CR7: 198 cases
	(f) London borough of Croydon: 665 cases.
	Results are based on person ID rather than case reference ID in line with older live cases unit reporting. As the query relies on postcodes, data quality in relation to formal addresses on the UK Border Agency database may affect the accuracy of the figures.
	The information has been provided from local management information and has not been quality assured to the level of published National Statistics. As such it should be treated as provisional and therefore subject to change.

Immigration: Peterborough

Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many UK Border Agency legacy cases are outstanding for applicants resident in the (a) (i) PE1, (ii) PE3 and (iii) PE4 postcode area and (b) Peterborough unitary authority area; and if she will make a statement.

Mark Harper: The number of UK Border Agency legacy cases outstanding for applicant's resident in the cited postcodes and Peterborough unitary authority is as follows:
	PE1: 78 cases
	PE3: 23 cases
	PE4: three cases.
	Peterborough unitary authority area: 124 cases (we have assumed this relates to the number of people in the Peterborough local authority).
	Results are based on person ID rather than case reference ID in line with older live cases unit reporting. As the query relies on postcodes, data quality in relation to formal addresses on the UK Border Agency database may affect the accuracy of the figures.
	The information has been provided from local management information and has not been quality assured to the level of published National Statistics. As such it should be treated as provisional and therefore subject to change.

Leave

Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officials in (a) her Department and (b) each of its agencies and non-departmental public bodies qualify for privilege days; and what the total cost to the public purse was of the number of privilege days utilised each year by such officials.

James Brokenshire: Within the Home Department (including its Executive Agencies), all staff have a contractual entitlement to 2.5 privilege days per year. Table 1 provides information on the number of staff within the Department (including each Agency). The total cost to the public purse of these privilege days in any given year could be provided only at disproportionate cost. This is because costs need to be calculated dependent upon individual terms and conditions as well as whether rotas/shifts include privilege day working.
	Each non-departmental public body (NDPB) of the Home Department can have its own terms and conditions for contractual entitlement to privilege days. Table 2 provides information on the number of staff within each NDPB of the Home Department. It has not been possible to obtain information on either contractual entitlement or cost in each NDPB without incurring a disproportionate cost.
	
		
			 Table 1: Number of staff in the Home Department (including its Executive Agencies) who qualify for up to 2.5 days privilege leave 
			 Area Full-Time Equivalent Headcount 
			 Home Office Headquarters (excl agencies) 10,801.93 
			 Identity and Passport Service 3,087.22 
			 UK Border Agency 10,688.97 
			 National Fraud Authority 46.60 
			 HO Total 24,624.72 
			 Extract Date: 1 February 2013 Period Covered: Data provided is as at 31 January 2013. Employee Coverage: Data is based on headcount FTE of all paid civil servants, who were current as at the 31 January 2013. Data Sources: Home Department—Data View, the Home Office's single source of Office for National Statistics compliant monthly snapshot corporate Human Resources data. 
		
	
	
		
			 Table 2: Number of staff in the Non-Departmental Public Bodies 
			 Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) Full-Time Equivalent Headcount 
			 Disclosure and Barring Service 735.16 
			 Independent Police Complaints Commission 375.99 
			 National Policing Improvement Agency 31.21 
			 Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner 58.40 
			 Security Industry Authority 162.35 
			 Serious Organised Crime Agency 3,747.60 
			 NDPB Total 5,110.71 
			 Extract Date: 1 February 2013. Period Covered: Data provided is as at 31 January 2013. Employee Coverage: Data is based on headcount FTE of all paid staff who were current as at the 31 January 2013. Data Sources: NDPBs—NDPBs compile and submit data separately for inclusion in the Workforce Management Information return.

Manchester Airport: Immigration Controls

Chris Bryant: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times the UK Border Force target for queuing times for (a) EEA and (b) non-EEA passengers at Manchester airport were breached in (i) October 2012, (ii) November 2012, (iii) December 2012 and (iv) January 2013.

Mark Harper: holding answer 5 March 2013
	During October, November and December 2012 and in January 2013, queues exceeding service standards occurred on the following number of occasions:
	
		
			 Manchester terminal 1 
			  Number of queues exceeding service standards Number of queue measurements taken 
			  EEA Non EEA EEA Non EEA 
			 October 2012 0 0 191 160 
			 November 2012 0 0 206 153 
			 December 2012 0 0 163 125 
			 January 2013 0 1 207 171 
		
	
	
		
			 Manchester terminal 2 
			  Number of queues exceeding service standards Number of queue measurements taken 
			  EEA Non EEA EEA Non EEA 
			 October 2012 2 1 232 158 
			 November 2012 0 0 137 86 
			 December 2012 0 0 162 113 
			 January 2013 0 0 156 120 
		
	
	
		
			 Manchester terminal 3 
			  Number of queues exceeding service standards Number of queue measurements taken 
			  EEA Non EEA EEA Non EEA 
			 October 2012 0 0 82 79 
			 November 2012 (1)— (1)— (1)— (1)— 
			 December 2012 (1)— (1)— (1)— (1)— 
			 January 2013 1 0 71 63 
			 (1) No data. Data not collected during this period. Note: The figures quoted are management information only which have been subject to internal quality checks and may be subject to change. 
		
	
	I also refer the hon. Member to the published statistics on the clearance of passengers, at the national level:
	http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/aboutus/clearance-of-passengers/

UK Border Force

Chris Bryant: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much her Department spent on advertising the position of Director General of the UK Border Force in the last year.

Mark Harper: holding answer 5 March 2013
	The role of. Director General, Border Force was advertised twice during 2012. Adverts were placed in a range of publications including The Sunday Times (print and online), The Guardian (online), Exec-Appointments (online), and Police Professional (online) at a cost of £17,174.

Disability Living Allowance

Anne McGuire: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in receipt of a disability living allowance award and have an been re-assessed in the most recent 12 months for which figures are available have had their benefit payment (a) terminated, (b) reduced and (c) increased.

Esther McVey: The information requested is contained in the following table:
	
		
			 Number of disability living allowance renewal claims in Great Britain between the period March 2012 to February 2013 
			 Disability living allowance March 2012 - February 2013 
			 Total Renewal claims 266,400 
			 (a) Disallowed 33,900 
			 (b) Reduced 33,400 
			 (c) Increased 12,200

Employment: Learning Disability

Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what work he is doing with employers to ensure that they understand and accommodate adults with moderate to mild learning difficulties.

Esther McVey: In October 2010, DWP responded to a number of requests from disabled people and disability organisations to improve work opportunities for individuals with learning difficulties by supporting the development of a national steering group entitled The Hidden Impairment National Group (HING). The main aim of the HING is to improve the DWP customer service experience for people with a range of learning difficulties including: Autistic Spectrum Conditions including Asperger Syndrome, ADHD, Dyslexia, Dyspraxia, Dyscalculia, Speech and Language and Mental ill Health.
	The group, led by DWP, has a strong and productive membership including disabled people with Hidden Impairment conditions, medical professionals and academics and disability specific organisations such as The Adsetts Partnership, Autism Plus, Complex Minds, Addept, The National Autistic Society, The Dyscovery Centre, The Dyspraxia Foundation, The Dyslexia Foundation and Dyslexia Action.
	Together, the HING has had a significant impact on improving the DWP customer journey for people with learning difficulties; developing a range of learning and development resources that are supporting DWP staff/managers to better understand the disability agenda; this includes an on-line toolkit, available to all staff via the intranet system that offers information on individual conditions and hints and tips on reasonable adjustment solutions that will be needed throughout the process.
	The HING has also recognised the importance of sharing this information with the wider business community across the country and had engaged with a large number of employers to help them to better recruit and retain disabled people and in particular individuals with learning difficulties. The HING has also embarked upon a national employer campaign entitled to 'Uncovering Hidden Impairments' to raise awareness of the skills, talents and abilities of many people with these conditions. For further information the HING has created a website that enables employers to register for free resources that will encourage them to recruit and retain disabled talent. This can be found at:
	www.hing.org.uk
	The Department's specialist disability employment programmes, including Work Choice, include provision for third party providers to support both employers and individuals with tailored support to meet their mutual needs in entering and remaining in employment. Access to Work is available for people whose health or disability affects they way they do their job, and provides support that is over and above what is considered a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act.
	The Department is also currently updating its strategy on engaging with employers on disability employment. This is expected to include deepening the support and resources available to employers in a strategic way.

Housing Benefit: Social Rented Housing

Mark Hendrick: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost of the exemption for under-occupying households with disabled children or armed forces' personnel is; and how that cost will be funded.

Steve Webb: The Department does not hold data on disabled children who cannot share bedrooms. However, claimants with disabled children are already entitled to claim housing benefit for an extra bedroom where the local authority is satisfied that it is necessary. This is included in existing housing benefit expenditure.
	The Department is also unable to make an estimate from survey data of non-dependants who are armed forced personnel. Parents of those who are in the armed forces are already entitled to claim housing benefit for an extra bedroom and this is included in existing expenditure. The recent amendments to the regulations allow housing benefit to continue for the extra bedroom while the non-dependant is deployed on operations.

Housing Benefit: Social Rented Housing

Madeleine Moon: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made on the implications of the outcome of Gorry versus the Department of Work and Pensions case for couples who cannot share a bedroom due to disability in respect of the new social housing under-occupancy rules; and if he will make a statement.

Steve Webb: Removal of the spare room subsidy in the social rented sector will be monitored and evaluated over a two-year period from April this year. Initial findings will be available in 2014 and the final report in late 2015. The evaluation will include small-scale, independent primary research with a range of local authorities, social landlords and voluntary organisations.
	As part of the research, we will look at people who are unable to share rooms and where possible it will also consider people's financial circumstances, social networks and family life.

Information Services: Hearing Impairment

Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 
	(1)  what steps the Government is taking to widen access for deaf people to information and services;
	(2)  what steps the Government is taking to promote learning and teaching of British Sign Language;
	(3)  what steps the Government is taking to support deaf children and families with deaf children;
	(4)  what steps the Government is taking to increase the numbers of interpreters of British Sign Language;
	(5)  what recent discussions (a) he, (b) Ministers and (c) his officials have had with representatives from the deaf community.

Esther McVey: Across Government, Departments undertake a range of actions to meet their obligations under the Equality Act 2010. This includes the provisions which require service providers, including those providing information, to make reasonable adjustments where, otherwise, a disabled person would be placed at a substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled people.
	Depending on individual needs these actions may include the provision of British Sign Language (BSL) interpreters, Lipspeakers or Deafblind interpreters.
	The Government also funds provision of BSL for example through Access to Work, which we know is a popular and effective programme that helps disabled people get or keep employment. In addition, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) fully funds BSL courses for young people as a first Level 2 or Level 3 qualification. The Government also fully funds BSL training where it is needed to help unemployed people find work. This training supports the development of the pool of BSL interpreters.
	On the current Qualifications and Credit Framework (QCF) list of qualifications that are available for public funding, there are 19 BSL qualifications which Government can fund. These range from entry level upwards and many other learners are able to take courses which are co-funded, ie subsidised, by Government.
	In addition to the support available to all families, deaf children are also able to access support for special educational needs (SEN). This support is organised by schools, local authorities and other education providers, but the Government is reforming the system through the Children and Families Bill, which is currently before Parliament. This will make the SEN system more responsive, help join up health, education and social care and give parents more choice over the school their child attends. They are intended to help improve outcomes for all children with SEN, including deaf children and young people. It will introduce a single Education, Health and Care Plan from birth up to age 25 and require local authorities to make arrangements to jointly commission services to support local children with SEN.
	In September 2012 the Government introduced new duties on schools to provide auxiliary aids (such as radio aids or sign language support) for deaf children. This strengthens the framework for ensuring that schools are meeting the needs of deaf pupils.
	The Department for Education is currently finalising funding agreements for a £1 million national support contract for sensory impairment (deaf, blind and deafblind children) to support local authorities to assess and benchmark their services, share good practice and learn from each other. This contract will run from April 2013 for two years to help ensure that the reforms have maximum impact in supporting children with sensory impairments.
	Representatives of deaf people's organisations are routinely involved in the discussions Ministers and officials have with disabled people's organisations. Most recently I had the great pleasure of attending and speaking at the British Deaf Association reception celebrating the 10th anniversary of the recognition of British Sign Language, which was held on 18 March in the House of Commons. It provided me with a valuable opportunity to talk to individual deaf people as well as representatives of the British Deaf Association, the Royal Association for Deaf People and Signature.

Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill

Andrew McDonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions with reference to paragraph 7 of the impact assessment of the Jobseeker's (Back to Work Schemes) Bill, how his Department plans to assess poor value to the taxpayer.

Mark Hoban: It is clear that a retrospective transfer of money to claimants previously sanctioned on ESE schemes, would represent poor value for money to the taxpayer as many individuals will now be in work and earning a wage. This money could be better spent on funding back-to-work schemes to support jobseeker's allowance claimants back to work.

State Retirement Pensions

Alex Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will consider making provision to ensure that individuals reaching pensionable age in the run-up to reforms being implemented do not lose out on any financial benefits arising from the single tier system.

Steve Webb: A key objective of reform is to move to a simpler, less means tested system that better supports saving for retirement.
	However, the single-tier pension will not be any more generous overall than the current system. Government has made it clear that the reforms to state pension will be cost neutral overall. The reform is not about spending additional money on future pensioners but about spending the money we have more effectively.
	Applying single tier to existing pensioners in a way that is cost neutral would involve changing pensions already in payment including reducing state pensions and other pensioner benefits for many existing pensioners which is not possible but would also be unfair.
	Current pensioners remain a priority for Government and we have introduced the triple lock to ensure that the basic state pension rises by at least 2.5% each year. Those who reach state pension age before the reforms are implemented will continue to receive their state pension in line with the existing rules.

Arts

Dan Jarvis: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what information her Department holds on the average annual salary of (a) full-time and (b) part-time employee in the UK (i) film, (ii) music and (iii) design industry.

Edward Vaizey: DCMS does not publish separate estimates on earnings within the film, music and design industries. We rely on data from the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, published by the ONS.
	http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ashe/annual-survey-of-hours-and-earnings/2012-provisional-results/index.html

Drax Power Station

Barry Gardiner: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions he has had with his ministerial colleagues on the £75 million debt guarantee for the Drax coal to biomass conversion project.

Richard Benyon: DEFRA Ministers meet regularly with other Ministers to discuss a range of issues. As has been the case with successive Administrations, it is not the Government's, practice to provide details of all such meetings.

Flood Control

Mary Creagh: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 14 March 2013, Official Report, column 308W, on flood control, if he will publish a breakdown by scheme of external organisations contributing partnership funding on flood defence in each of the last three years; and what the expected contributions are in each of the next three years.

Richard Benyon: The current Partnership Funding system started in April 2012. Prior to the start of Partnership Funding, income for schemes was aggregated and therefore a breakdown by scheme for 2010-11 and 2011-12 is not held centrally. Information on the aggregate income for these years was provided in my answer of 14 March 2013.
	Regarding the data for schemes moving into construction in 2012-13 with confirmed external contributions, I refer to my answer of 5 September 2012, Official Report, column 348W.
	For future years, the following table provides details of schemes that are due to commence in 2013-14 with external contributions.
	Schemes commencing construction in future years beyond 2013-14 do not have confirmed funding until Grant in Aid allocations are confirmed.
	Overall, contributions have come forward from a range of sources, including from businesses, local authorities and communities. However in many cases, external contributors prefer not to disclose their contributions.
	It is estimated that Partnership funding will secure around £148 million of external funding on top of the £2.3 billion the Government are investing in flood and coastal erosion risk management over this spending period (April 2011 to March 2015).
	
		
			 Table listing details of flood and coastal risk management schemes moving into construction in 2013-14 funded wholly or party with external contributions(1) 
			 Scheme name Regional flood and coastal committee Parliamentary constituencies Total scheme cost£ million Total external contributions£ million 
			 Leeds City Flood Alleviation scheme Yorkshire Leeds Central 50.50 18.00 
			 Cottingham and Orchard Flood Alleviation scheme Yorkshire Haltemprice and Howden 21.54 9.91 
			 Willerby and Derringham Flood Alleviation scheme Yorkshire Haltemprice and Howden 14.25 6.47 
			 Sandsend Coast Protection scheme Yorkshire Scarborough and Whitby 9.33 4.57 
			 Anchorsholme Coast Protection scheme North West Blackpool North and Cleveleys 28.38 4.00 
			 Redruth Brewery Quarter Flood Risk Improvements South West Camborne and Redruth 3.00 2.60 
			 Filey Flood Alleviation Works Yorkshire Thirsk and Malton 5.02 2.30 
			 Skipton Flood Alleviation scheme Yorkshire Skipton and Ripon 10.04 2.08 
			 Sheffield Lower Don Valley Flood Protection Project Yorkshire Sheffield South East and Sheffield Central 11.33 1.75 
			 Pickering Flood Storage scheme Yorkshire Thirsk and Malton 1.84 1.37 
			 Humber Grimsby Docks Anglian Northern Great Grimsby 14.52 1.20 
			 Houghton Washland Flood Storage scheme, Darfield, Barnsley Yorkshire Barnsley East 1.20 0.82 
			 Millbay Tanks, Plymouth South West Plymouth-Sutton, Devonport 1.04 0.77 
		
	
	
		
			 Rossall Coastal Defence Improvement scheme North West Lancaster and Fleetwood CC 80.47 0.65 
			 Rolles Brook (Southampton) Flood Alleviation scheme Southern Southampton Test 0.74 0.60 
			 Cam Pumping Station Refurbishment Anglian Central South East Cambridgeshire 1.00 0.56 
			 Hesketh Outmarsh East Managed Realignment scheme North West South Ribble 2.64 0.55 
			 Wombwell Ings Flood Storage scheme, Darfield, Barnsley Yorkshire Barnsley East 0.75 0.55 
			 Littlehampton Arun Tidal Defences East Bank Southern Bognor Regis and Littlehampton 10.80 0.50 
			 Cannington Flood Defence scheme Wessex Bridgwater and West Somerset 2.77 0.50 
			 Warnham Mill Reservoir Southern Horsham 1.00 0.50 
			 Barnetby Woodland View Flood Alleviation scheme Anglian Northern Brigg and Goole 0.58 0.44 
			 Holly Brook (Southampton) Flood Alleviation scheme Southern Southampton Test 0.64 0.43 
			 Tanners Brook (Southampton) Flood Alleviation scheme Southern Southampton Test 0.74 0.41 
			 Weston Catchment Flood Alleviation scheme Wessex Bath 1.93 0.38 
			 Lendall Pumping Station Improvements, Barmby on the Marsh Yorkshire Selby and Ainsty 0.62 0.34 
			 Rodbourne Lagoons Flood Alleviation Thames Swindon North 1.22 0.30 
			 Crowhurst Surface Water Flood Relief scheme Southern Bexhill and Battle 0.41 0.30 
			 Dawlish Warren and Exmouth Beach Management scheme South West Newton Abbot 8.60 0.25 
			 Holbeach River Tidal Sluice Refurbishment Anglian Northern Spalding and Deepings 0.58 0.23 
			 Whaddon, Cheltenham, Flood Alleviation scheme Severn and Wye Cheltenham, Tewkesbury 1.76 0.22 
			 West Shore Park Coast Protection scheme North West Barrow and Furness 0.62 0.21 
			 Moreton in Marsh Flood Relief Culvert Thames Cotswolds 0.30 0.20 
		
	
	
		
			 Ransonmoor Pumping Station Refurbishment Anglian Central North East Cambridgeshire 0.35 0.19 
			 Dobbs Gutter, Formby Flood Alleviation scheme North West Sefton Central 0.25 0.19 
			 Ledburn Flood Risk Management scheme Anglian Central South West Bedfordshire 0.25 0.15 
			 Cubbington Flood Alleviation Scheme, Warwickshire, Flood Risk Management scheme Severn and Wye Warwick and Leamington 0.90 0.15 
			 Briarvale Flood Alleviation scheme Northumbria Tynemouth 0.26 0.11 
			 Bridge Road, Emsworth Flood Alleviation scheme Southern Havant Borough 1.07 0.10 
			 Hearne Brook Flood Relief Works, Cheltenham Severn and Wye Cheltenham 0.37 0.10 
			 Washways Pumping Station Refurbishment Anglian Central North East Cambridgeshire 0.35 0.09 
			 Netley Cliff Coastal Erosion Management scheme Southern Eastleigh 0.57 0.09 
			 Leconfield Flood Alleviation scheme Yorkshire Beverley and Holderness 0.28 0.09 
			 The Beck, Elford, Culvert repairs Trent Tamworth 0.32 0.07 
			 Cold Ash Hill Phase 1 Thames Thatcham 0.97 0.07 
			 Bevills Leam Pumping Station Refurbishment Anglian Central North West Cambridgeshire 0.25 0.07 
			 Coombend Culvert and Stream Improvements Wessex North East Somerset 2.12 0.05 
			 River Coin at Fairford Flood Alleviation scheme Thames Cotswolds 0.55 0.05 
			 Brampton, Chesterfield Property Level Flood Protection Yorkshire Chesterfield 0,45 0.05 
			 Bridlington Royal Princess Parade Seawall Improvements Yorkshire East Yorkshire 2.46 0.04 
			 Shyte Brook, Much Wenlock, Flood Alleviation scheme Severn and Wye Ludlow 0.70 0.04 
			 Stockport Road, Marple Culvert Culvert Rehabilitation North West Hazel Grove 0.48 0.03 
			 The Beck, Mousesweet Brook, Dudley Flood Alleviation scheme Severn and Wye Stourbridge 0.28 0.03 
		
	
	
		
			 Lubbesthorpe Brook, Lubbesthorpe, Leicester, Flood Alleviation scheme Trent South Leicestershire 0.68 0.02 
			 Wisbech Channel Improvements Anglian Central North East Cambridgeshire 0.25 0.02 
			 Lower Brue Urban Drainage Improvements—West Huntspill and Alstone Wessex Bridgwater and West Somerset 0.32 0.01 
			 Hillman Cottages, Abridge Candidate Assessment Thames Epping Forest 0.82 0.01 
			 River Cole, Stetchford, Colbourne Court Flood Alleviation scheme Trent Birmingham, Yardley 0.38 0.01 
			 (1) Data accurate as of February 2013.

Glass: Recycling

Cathy Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the rate of non-melt fraction of glass recycling.

Richard Benyon: The Environment Agency published data in February 2013 on the estimated amount of recovered glass received by remelt and non-remelt applications. The data on the Environment Agency National Packaging Waste Database relates to the years 2010, 2011 and 2012. This shows that for the UK, the proportion of recovered glass. sent to non-remelt applications was 49%, 47% and 40% respectively.

Patrol Craft

Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 
	(1)  when the Government expects to place the order for the construction of new offshore patrol vessels; and if he will make a statement;
	(2)  from which departmental budget the funding for new offshore patrol vessels will come;
	(3)  how much his Department expects to pay to the Ministry of Defence as a contribution to the construction of new offshore patrol vessels.

Richard Benyon: There are no plans to pay for the construction of new offshore patrol vessels. The Marine Management Organisation pays a daily rate for the supply of patrol vessels for fishery enforcement work at sea but do not contribute towards the construction of patrol vessels.

River Derwent

Tony Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans he has to compensate people in Cockermouth for the breaching of the River Derwent's flood relief channel in that town in 2005, 2006 and 2009; and whether that compensation will take account of historic lack of maintenance of flood relief work on the River Derwent.

Richard Benyon: The Government is not legally liable to pay any compensation for the flooding which occurred in the town of Cockermouth in 2005, 2006 and 2009.
	There was no breaching to the existing flood defences during these floods; the defences were overtopped due to very high river flows.
	In November 2009, West Cumbria was subject to unprecedented and record rainfall, which fell on already saturated ground. The river levels were so high and the flooding was so significant that any removal of additional gravel, beyond that already removed as part of the Environment Agency's routine maintenance programme, would not have prevented the flooding.

Special Advisers

David Wright: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many special advisers work in his office.

Nicholas Clegg: The Government regularly publishes details of special adviser numbers and pay bands. This information is available on the Cabinet Office website at
	https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/special-adviser-data-releases-numbers-and-costs-october-2012

Spoilt Ballot Papers

Graham Jones: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps the Government plans to take to reduce the number of spoilt ballot papers in future elections.

Chloe Smith: It is clearly of vital importance that voters can complete their ballot paper and make an effective voting choice. Guidance notices, which are prescribed in legislation, are displayed in polling booths, and information is provided in postal ballot packs, explaining how to mark voting preferences on the ballot paper at each type of election.
	Improvements were made to the clarity of these notices as well as the ballot paper and other voter-facing forms used at the November 2012 Mayoral and Police and Crime Commissioner Elections. The Government will consider the extent to which the design changes made for those elections might be reflected at other elections to make the voting experience as accessible as possible.

Lobbying

Chi Onwurah: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received on the proposed statutory register of lobbyists since September 2012.

Chloe Smith: As Minister with responsibility for this policy, I have received a number of letters from Members of Parliament expressing an interest in our proposals for a statutory register of lobbyists. I have also received correspondence on the matter from a range of stakeholders.
	The Government is committed to introducing a statutory register of lobbyists. We are continuing to carefully consider the evidence submitted in response to our consultation and will publish revised proposals in due course.

Lobbying

Chi Onwurah: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what meetings he has had with interested parties on his plans to introduce a statutory register of lobbyists since September 2012.

Chloe Smith: Cabinet Office Ministers have had no meetings with interested parties on the Government's plans for a proposed statutory register of lobbyists since September 2012.
	The Government is committed to introducing a statutory register of lobbyists. We are continuing to carefully consider the evidence submitted in response to our consultation and will publish revised proposals in due course.

Disclosure of Information

Jon Trickett: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how many civil servants in his Department have been subject to non-disclosure agreements in each year since 2010.

Gregory Barker: The Department of Energy and Climate Change has interpreted the hon. Member’s reference to 'non-disclosure agreements' as relating to individual compromise agreements between the Department and a current or former employee under which the employee or former employee has received a negotiated sum to specifically secure the confidentiality of the settlement.
	Our records show that one such compromise agreement was concluded in the period from 1 January 2010 to date.

Fuel Poverty

Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how many and what proportion of people lived in fuel poverty in each of the last 30 years (a) nationally and (b) in each region.

Gregory Barker: The following table shows the number and proportion of households in fuel poverty for each country in the UK, for each year that data is available since the measurement of fuel poverty started in 1996.
	
		
			   1996 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 
			 England Thousand 5,100 1,222 1,236 1,529 2,432 2,819 3,335 3,964 3,536 
			  Percentage 25 6 6 7 11 13 16 18 16 
		
	
	
		
			   1996 2002 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2007 2008 2009 2010 
			 Scotland Thousand 756 293 350 419 543 586 618 770 658 
			  Percentage 36 13 15 18 24 25 27 33 28 
		
	
	
		
			   2004 2005* 2006* 2008 2009* 2010* 
			 Wales Thousand 134 167 250 332 368 332 
			  Percentage 11 14 21 26 29 26 
		
	
	
		
			   2004 2006 2009 
			 Northern Ireland Thousand 154 226 302 
			  Percentage 24 34 44 
		
	
	Data for England is taken from the annual Fuel Poverty Statistics, based on the English Housing Survey (EHS). Data for Scotland is taken from the Scottish House Condition Survey. This survey changed to a calendar year basis in 2007, making it consistent with the English Housing Survey. Data for Wales is taken from the Living in Wales survey. Years marked with an asterisk (*) indicate those for which fuel poverty in Wales has been estimated, by taking data from a previous year where actual data was available, and applying predicted price and income changes. Data for Northern Ireland is taken from the Northern Ireland House Condition Survey.
	The following table shows the number and proportion of households in fuel poverty in each region in England between 2003 and 2010. This information is only available from 2003 onwards. This table can also be found in the long-term trends tables of our annual fuel poverty publication (in table 19). This can be found here:
	https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-energy-climate-change/series/fuel-poverty-statistics
	
		
			  Fuel poor 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 
			 North East Thousand 95 103 126 179 206 236 272 238 
			  Percentage 8.7 9.5 11.5 16.4 18.6 21.2 24.1 21.3 
			 Yorkshire and the Humber Thousand 180 163 169 273 333 407 444 415 
			  Percentage 8.6 7.7 8.0 12.7 15.5 18.2 19.9 18.6 
			 North West Thousand 178 190 268 415 412 531 649 601 
			  Percentage 6.3 6.6 9.2 14.2 16.1 18.1 22.1 20.3 
			 East Midlands Thousand 112 101 145 236 212 359 398 341 
			  Percentage 6.3 5.7 8.1 12.9 14.8 19.2 21.4 18.1 
			 West Midlands Thousand 146 153 197 304 383 500 589 485 
			  Percentage 6.7 7.0 8.9 13.7 17.2 22.5 26.2 21.6 
			 South West Thousand 139 134 181 256 259 339 411 342 
			  Percentage 6.5 6.2 8.3 11.6 11.7 75.5 18.4 15.2 
			 East of England Thousand 115 141 155 224 253 292 388 381 
			  Percentage 5.1 6.1 6.7 9.7 10.8 12.5 16.2 16.0 
			 South East Thousand 149 133 169 291 333 342 411 401 
			  Percentage 4.4 3.9 4.9 8.5 9.5 9.9 11.8 11.5 
			 London Thousand 108 119 120 254 309 328 402 331 
			  Percentage 3.6 3.9 3.9 8.3 10.0 10.8 13.3 10.9

Fuel Poverty

Stephen McCabe: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what consideration his Department has given to introducing lifeline tariffs for those energy customers in the UK who are at most risk of energy poverty.

Gregory Barker: Help with energy bills for those in the UK who are in or at risk of fuel poverty is provided by the warm home discount. This provides help annually to around two million low income and vulnerable households. This winter that included a £130 discount on electricity bills paid to around 1.16 million of the poorest pensioners.
	In addition, Ofgem's retail market review proposals will ensure that all consumers are on the cheapest tariff in line with their preferences. The Government has also introduced clauses into the Energy Bill so that it can act to implement these important reforms in the event that Ofgem's proposals are frustrated or unduly delayed.

Radioactive Waste

Margaret Ritchie: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what assessment he has made of the selection of a site for the storage of radioactive waste from existing and former nuclear sites; and if he will make a statement. [Official Report, 17 April 2013, Vol. 561, c. 1MC.]

John Hayes: The UK's higher activity radioactive waste is currently held in safe and secure storage facilities at various nuclear sites around the country. Government set out its approach to implementing a geological disposal facility (GDF) to dispose of the UK's higher activity radioactive waste in the 2008 White Paper “Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: A Framework for Implementing Geological Disposal”.
	The Managing Radioactive Waste Safely (MRWS) process is based on the principles of voluntarism and partnership. It is a staged process, one in which potential host communities 'decide to participate' (without commitment) in site identification and assessment for a potential GDF. To date, no sites have been selected. The Managing Radioactive Waste Safely (MRWS) programme is a very long-term one, and Government remains confident that a suitable site for a GDF will be found.
	The current invitation remains open for volunteer communities to express an interest, without commitment, in the MRWS process. At the same time, Government has been working to learn the lessons of the recent experience gained in west Cumbria—as the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change affirmed in his written ministerial statement earlier today, will launch in May a public call for evidence on the site selection process of the MRWS programme. The evidence provided in response to this call will inform a public consultation later this year on how this process might be improved.
	With regards to the recent experience in west Cumbria, both Copeland and Allerdale borough councils decided to proceed to site identification and assessment, however, Cumbria county council did not. Since Government had given a specific commitment in west Cumbria that there should be agreement at both borough and county level before progressing to the next stage, this decision brought the existing site selection process to an end in west Cumbria.

Green Investment Bank

Christopher Leslie: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills pursuant to the Budget 2013 Red Book, Table 2.5, which capital items and projects are no longer proceeding as a consequence of the underspend by the Green Investment Bank in 2012-13; and if he will make a statement.

Michael Fallon: There are no specific projects or capital spending plans that are no longer proceeding. The UK Green Investment Bank has full flexibility to carry forward capital under-spends within this spending review period. The bank is confident it will commit the full £3 billion the Government is providing for the period to April 2015.

Higher Education: Admissions

Damian Hinds: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills 
	(1)  what information his Department holds on the rate of university admissions, excluding admissions from overseas, of young people from different ethnic groups and each income level relative to the proportion of such groups to the overall population of young people;
	(2)  what information his Department holds on the rate of university admissions, excluding admissions from overseas, of young people from different ethnic groups, relative to the proportion of such groups to the overall population of young people; and what those figures would be if different levels of academic achievement were taken into account.

David Willetts: The information is not held centrally. Data on applications and acceptances to full-time undergraduate courses by ethnic group are collected by the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) and are available from their website at:
	http://www.ucas.com/about_us/stat_services/stats_online/data tables/
	Information on the numbers of entrants to both full-time and part-time undergraduate courses by ethnic group is collected by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) and is available from their website at:
	http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php/content/view/1973/239/
	Neither organisation publishes admissions by ethnic group as a percentage of the overall population of young people.
	Both UCAS and HESA are organisations independent from Government. The Government is firmly committed to improving the information available about higher education through the key information set and other initiatives, and is in favour of transparency on who applies to and who attends higher education.

Industrial Disputes

Nia Griffith: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills whether he has made a public response to the concerns recently raised by the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, with regards to proscriptions on the right to strike such as the ban on secondary picketing in force since 1982; and what assessment he has made of those concerns.

Jo Swinson: Although the Special Rapporteur has identified some preliminary findings, his full report is yet to be published.
	The Government supports the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association and believes that the UK complies with human rights obligations in respect of trade union law.

Overseas Trade: Israel

Martin Vickers: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what assessment he has made of the UK-Israel Tech Hub.

David Willetts: The UK Israel Tech Hub was launched in October 2011 by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), and with the active support and involvement of BIS, in order to drive UK economic growth by helping British companies partner with the best of Israeli innovation.
	The Hub conducted a process of strategic planning and consultation with industry leaders on both sides to identify sectors with unique UK/Israel synergies—including Digital, Biomed, Cleantech, Arabic Internet, Government IT and Finance. Within these sectors, priorities have been mapped out and targeted activities executed to address these priorities.
	Following the launch of the Hub, I visited Israel at the end of October 2011, on a high tech mission to promote the UK as a natural partner for Israeli high tech and to develop an understanding of the Israeli high tech scene.
	I also co-chair the UK-Israel High Tech Council, launched in March 2012, with Israel's Chief Scientist, Avi Hasson.
	The UK Israel Tech Hub has been defined as a three-year experiment and the assessment to date is that it is meeting and even exceeding expectations within this short time frame. Achievements to date include:
	In the digital sector—three inward investment successes (opening offices in the UK), over 20 prospective commercial partnerships, and a positive change in perception among Israeli participants regarding the attractiveness of the tech environment; and
	In the biomed sector—three Israeli companies planning clinical trials in the UK.

Bank Notes

Iain Wright: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will discuss with the Governor of the Bank of England the possibility and merits of introducing plastic banknotes into circulation.

Sajid Javid: The Chancellor of the Exchequer regularly meets with the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss a wide range of issues.
	The issuing of banknotes is the responsibility of the Bank of England. The bank of England is committed to ensuring public confidence in the availability, quality and security of the currency. The bank continually looks at the security features of the notes and at methods of production and printing, including the use of alternative substrates.

Climate Change Levy: Bricks

Peter Luff: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to his Statement on the exemption of the ceramics industry for the Climate Change Levy, Official Report, column 938, if brick-making is included in the exemption; and if he will make a statement.

Sajid Javid: Budget 2013 announced that the Government will introduce exemptions from the climate change levy for energy used in metallurgical and mineralogical processes from 1 April 2014.
	The Government is working closely with industry to determine the appropriate scope and design of this relief, including which processes should be covered.

Economic Growth

Ann McKechin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the financial statement of 20 March 2013, Official Report, column 938, whether the single local growth fund will be funded by his Department or by existing funding transferred from other Government departments.

Danny Alexander: The Government announced at the autumn statement of 5 December 2012, Official Report, columns 871-882, that it would devolve a greater proportion of growth-related spending on the basis of plans developed by LEPs by creating a single funding pot for local areas from April 2015.
	The Government's response to the Heseltine Review published on the 18 March 2013 confirmed that the Government would create a Single Local Growth Fund with the full details on the size and content to be announced alongside the spending round later this year.

Economic Growth

Ann McKechin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the financial statement of 20 March 2013, Official Report, column 938, which Government departments will contribute from their departmental budgets to the single local growth fund.

Danny Alexander: The Government's response to the Heseltine Review published on 18 March 2013 confirmed that the Government would create a Single Local Growth Fund with the full details on the size and content to be announced alongside the spending round later this year.
	The response confirmed that the Single Local Growth Fund would contain elements of transport, housing and skills budgets. And that as part of the spending round the Government will also review all the other funding streams that Lord Heseltine identified in his report.

Excise Duties: Beer

Tom Blenkinsop: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the 1980 court ruling in the case of European Commission vs UK, Number 170/78, what assessment he has made of the extent to which his decision to cut duty for beer, but not other alcoholic beverages, complies with European law.

Sajid Javid: EU law requires duty on average strength beer and wine to be broadly similar, which following the Budget, remains the case across the UK.
	The average strength of wine has been increasing in recent years and per unit of alcohol the duty on wine has increased by less than the duty on beer.

Financial Services: Cyprus

Kevan Jones: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 
	(1)  what meetings and communications (a) he and (b) Ministers in his Department have had with their counterparts at the Ministry of Defence on the effect of the Cypriot savings levy on members of the UK armed forces serving in Cyprus;
	(2)  pursuant to his oral statement of 18 March 2013, Official Report, column 167W, when he is planning to meet the Secretary of State for Defence on the situation of UK armed forces personnel potentially affected by the Cypriot savings levy;
	(3)  what his definition is of the phrase reasonable losses, for which the Government will compensate members of the armed forces who are serving in Cyprus and are affected by the Cypriot savings levy.

Greg Clark: holding answer 22 March 2013
	The Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), made clear that all military and government personnel sent to serve in Cyprus, and their families, will be protected from any losses on their personal deposits. This applies to any affected personal account—current accounts and savings accounts.
	The Chancellor and his ministerial colleagues meet regularly to discuss a wide range of issues.
	Treasury Ministers and officials engage with a wide variety of organisations in the public and private sectors, as part of the process of policy development and delivery.
	The Treasury publishes a list of ministerial meetings with external organisations. This is available online at:
	http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/minister_hospitality.htm

PAYE

Stephen Timms: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons he has delayed for small firms the requirement in the new PAYE Real Time Information system that employers should make a PAYE submission on or before each payment to an employee; and in what circumstances he would consider a further such delay.

David Gauke: In developing PAYE Real Time Information (RTI) HMRC has worked closely with employers, their representatives, payroll bureaux and agents to understand the impact of RTI. As a consequence of these consultations they recognise that some small employers who pay their employees, more frequently, but currently only process their payroll monthly may need longer to adapt to reporting PAYE information in real time. HMRC have therefore agreed a transitional relaxation of reporting arrangements for small businesses. However, all businesses will still be required to report real time information at the time of their payroll or at the very latest by the end of the tax month. Working with representatives of small business and the accountancy profession, HMRC agreed this as an appropriate easement at the start of this transitional year for RTI in which they are supporting all businesses through the implementation without the threat of penalties.
	HMRC have no plans to extend this reporting relaxation beyond 5 October 2013. They will, however, continue to work with employer representatives during the summer to assess the impact of RTI on the smallest businesses and consider whether they can make improvements to real time reporting which will address their concerns without compromising the benefits of RTI or the success of the Department for Work and Pension's universal credit.

Taxation: Electricity

Chris Heaton-Harris: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the merits of introducing an hypothecated windfall tax to remove unanticipated and unreasonable profit resulting from the interaction of the Renewables Obligation and the Carbon Price Support; and if he will consider allocating the revenue from such a tax to electricity consumers. [R]

Sajid Javid: The Government has no current plans to impose a windfall tax. Our priority is to provide business with the confidence to invest and expand, helping to return the UK economy to sustainable, balanced growth. This means having a tax system that is competitive, stable, simple and predictable. The carbon price floor will provide greater certainty for investors to incentivise investment now in new low carbon electricity generation.

Housing: Construction

Philip Hollobone: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what his policy is on the promotion of new build, zero carbon homes.

Don Foster: holding answer 14 March 2013
	Budget 2013 reaffirmed the Government's commitment to implementing 'zero carbon homes' from 2016. The Department will publish a detailed plan, setting out its response to the 2012 consultation on the energy efficiency requirements in building regulations, by May 2013. The Government will then consult on next steps, including on the means of delivering allowable solutions, by summer recess.

Housing: Sustainable Development

Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many of the major housing decisions made in 2012 attained (a) Code level 4 and (b) Code level 5 or above of the Code for Sustainable Homes; how many such houses were built on greenfield land; what proportion of the completed units were affordable; and if he will make a statement.

Don Foster: The Government does not hold information in the form requested, distinguishing the types of sites on which Code homes are constructed. Statistical information about the Code for Sustainable Homes and the energy performance of buildings is however published quarterly on the Gov.uk website. In 2012 Code level 4 completion certificates were issued for 9,468 homes, of which 7,640 were publicly funded. Similarly in 2012, Code level 5 and 6 completion certificates were issued for 234 homes, of which 211 were publicly funded.

Olympic Games 2012

Gordon Henderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government whether any funds from the public purse will be spent refurbishing and modifying the Olympic Stadium in preparation for any sale.

Brandon Lewis: Parliament, in passing the Localism Act, devolved a number of functions, including responsibility for the Olympic legacy in London to the Mayor of London. Therefore, the Mayor is now accountable to Londoners and the London Assembly for the delivery of these functions in London and the use of the resources provided to support them. The Mayor established the London Legacy Development Corporation to manage the long-term planning, development, management and maintenance of the Olympic Park and its facilities after the London 2012 Games. There are no current plans to sell the stadium.
	On 22 March the Corporation announced that West Ham United Football Club has been confirmed as the stadium's long-term anchor tenant with a 99 year concession, paying approximately £2 million in rent per year. West Ham will also make a contribution of £15 million towards the cost of transforming the stadium into a multi-use venue with a roof to pitch side and retractable seating that is suitable for athletics, football and other events.
	The remaining funding for the transformation of the stadium will come from the London borough of Newham (£40 million), the Corporation/Mayor of London (£52.6 million), the Public Sector Funding Package (£38.7 million) and the Public Works Loan Board (£18.7 million).
	The Government is committed to ensuring that the Olympic Stadium provides a long-term and viable legacy for the Olympic Games and therefore agreed to make an exceptional contribution of £25 million towards the transformation costs, should it be required once the tenders are returned.
	The total public sector contribution towards the cost of transforming the stadium is £175 million. The stadium and its transformation will be managed by the Legacy Corporation and Newham council using a dedicated joint venture E20 Stadium LLP. The partnership, announced in July 2012, will help secure extensive community benefits including jobs and sport and education activity, with community access to both the stadium and the new 400m community track. The E20 Stadium partnership will now procure a stadium operator to manage the venue, coordinate community and sporting use, and to bring in various concerts and events.
	The stadium transformation will ensure that it has both the capacity and facilities to attract cultural and sporting events on a one-off basis and through long-term regular use.

Planning Permission

Tom Blenkinsop: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government whether his Department has any plans to deregulate the publication of planning permission applications in local newspapers.

Brandon Lewis: holding answer 21 March 2013
	Ministers have been clear that, in an internet age, commercial newspapers should expect over time less state advertising as more information is syndicated online by local authorities for free. The flipside is the free press should not face state unfair competition from town hall newspapers and municipal propaganda dressed up as local reporting.
	However, my Department does not have any current plans to remove the statutory requirement for certain planning applications to be advertised in newspapers. Such notices ensure that the public are informed of decisions by their local authority which may affect their quality of life, local amenity or their property. This is especially the case in relation to planning applications, where there is a limited period for local residents to make representations.
	The last Administration produced a consultation paper on this issue, proposing to
	remove the statutory requirements to publish notices in newspapers (Department for Communities and Local Government, ‘Publicity for planning applications’, July 2009). This was not well-received. Following that consultation, the Administration concluded:
	“The Government has decided not to take forward this amendment. This means that the statutory requirement to publish certain applications in newspapers remains. It is clear from the responses that some members of the public and community groups rely on the statutory notices in newspapers to learn about planning applications in their area. The Government is not convinced that good alternative arrangements can be readily rolled out”.
	(Department for Communities and Local Government, ‘Publicity for planning applications: Summary of responses to consultation’, December 2009, p. 14).
	More broadly, in response to his implicit suggestion that such notices should be abolished in newspapers, I would direct the hon. Member to a passage from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
	“People of Earth, your attention, please... This is Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz of the Galactic Hyperspace Planning Council. As you will no doubt be aware, the plans for development of the outlying regions of the Galaxy require the building of a hyperspatial express route through your star system, and regrettably, your planet is one of those scheduled for demolition. The process will take slightly less than two of your Earth minutes. Thank you...
	There's no point in acting surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for fifty of your Earth years, so you've had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it's far too late to start making a fuss about it now...
	What do you mean you've never been to Alpha Centauri? Oh, for heaven's sake, mankind, it's only four light years away, you know. I'm sorry, but if you can't be bothered to take an interest in local affairs, that's your own lookout. Energize the demolition beams.”

Burma

Kerry McCarthy: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture on the treatment of prisoners in Buttidaung Prison in northern Rakhine State.

Hugo Swire: We have not had any recent discussions with the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture. However, we have regular discussions with the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights situation in Burma, Tomas Ojea Quintana. These meetings cover the full range of human rights issues in Burma, including the issue of political prisoners. Mr Quintana's report on 6 March highlighted concerns about the ongoing practice of torture in places of detention in Burma, and set out allegations that Muslim prisoners detained in Buthidaung prison in Rakhine State after last June and October's violence had been tortured and beaten to death.
	On 7 March, our ambassador discussed the plight of Rohingya prisoners in Buthidaung jail with the Burmese Minister for Border Affairs.
	We continue to press for full and prompt implementation of the mechanism set up by the Burmese Government for reviewing disputed cases and for the unconditional release of political prisoners with senior members of the Burmese Government, as I did during my visit to Burma in December 2012.

Chemical Weapons: Conferences

John Stanley: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what outcomes the Government wants to see achieved at the forthcoming Chemical Weapons Convention 3rd Review Conference.

Alistair Burt: The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) has proved an invaluable tool to progress our objective to see a world free from chemical weapons. We welcome the progress made to destroy 78% of the world's declared chemical weapons. While completion of destruction is essential, we want the third CWC review conference to also focus on ensuring that chemical weapons cannot return. We want the Director General of the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons to be given a clear mandate to enable the organisation to focus more on chemical safety and security issues. We want to see an even greater effort to bring into the convention the remaining eight non-states parties, including Syria; to promote effective national implementation of the convention by all states parties; for the convention and its verification regime to take into full account developments in Science & Technology and, in doing so, promote awareness of the “dual use” risks from chemistry among scientists and engineers.

Cancer: Drugs

Sarah Newton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of people in each strategic health authority area who have received treatment through the Cancer Drugs Fund to date.

Norman Lamb: Information on the number of patients who have had cancer drugs funded by strategic health authority (SHA) under the interim cancer drugs funding arrangements in 2010-11 (from October 2010 to the end of March 2011) and under the Cancer Drugs Fund (from April 2011 to the end of January 2013) is shown in the following table:
	
		
			 Strategic health authority Number of patients funded in 2010-11 Number of patients funded in 2011-12 Number of patients funded from April 2012 to end January 2013 Total number of patients funded since October 2010(1) 
			 North East 420 696 419 1,535 
			 North West 266 1,044 1,527 2,837 
			 Yorkshire and the Humber 178 809 1,169 2,156 
			 East Midlands 178 871 797 1,846 
			 West Midlands 292 1,658 1,278 3,228 
			 East of England 246 1,486 1,413 3,145 
			 London 443 1,364 1,529 3,336 
		
	
	
		
			 South East Coast 306 1,241 1,172 2,719 
			 South Central 290 1,170 2,109 3,569 
			 South West 161 1,459 1,976 3,596 
			 Total 2,780 11,798 13,389 27,967 
			 Note: Some individual patients may be double-counted where a patient has received more than one drug treatment through the Cancer Drugs Fund. Source: Information provided to the Department by SHAs

Diabetes

George Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  how many people with type 1 diabetes have been diagnosed as having related eating disorders in each primary care trust area in each year since 2008;
	(2)  how many people with type 1 diabetes and related eating disorders have been the subject of hospital admissions (a) by hospital and (b) per person for each year since 2008.

Anna Soubry: The Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC) does not hold information relating to the number of people with type 1 diabetes who have been diagnosed with an eating disorder. The reason for this is that Hospital Episode Statistics do not capture this information as it relates to primary care.
	The HSCIC are unable to provide the data to the requested level of detail due to the rules concerning the suppression of small numbers (many hospitals would have fewer than five admissions each year for this combination of conditions). HSCIC have therefore provided figures at a national level.
	The data provided are for hospital admission episodes with a diagnosis (primary or secondary) of diabetes and with a diagnosis (primary or secondary) of an eating disorder and is provided for the period 2005-06 to 2011-12.
	It should be noted that these data should not be described as a count of people as the same person may have been admitted on more than one occasion.
	
		
			 Count of finished admission episodes (FAEs) with a primary or secondary diagnosis of diabetes, and a primary or secondary diagnosis of an eating disorder, 2005-06 to 2011-12: Activity in English NHS Hospitals and English NHS commissioned activity in the independent sector 
			  FAEs 
			 2005-06 155 
			 2006-07 180 
			 2007-08 195 
			 2008-09 226 
			 2009-10 285 
			 2010-11 299 
			 2011-12 354

Epilepsy

Valerie Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  if his Department will make it a priority to incorporate the epilepsy quality standards into the Clinical Commissioning Group Outcomes Indicator Set;
	(2)  how and when the new Quality Standards for Epilepsy will be incorporated into the Clinical Commissioning Group Outcome Indicator Set.

Norman Lamb: It is for the NHS Commissioning Board (NHS CB) to make decisions on the Clinical Commissioning Group Outcomes Indicator Set.
	We understand that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) published two epilepsy quality standards on 28 February this year and plan to consider potential epilepsy indicators for the Clinical Commissioning Group Outcomes Indicator Set in April.
	Following further consideration by NICE, and their independent advisory committee on whether there is a need for further work to develop these indicators, it will make recommendations to the NHS CB who will make final decisions about inclusion in the Clinical Commissioning Group Indicator Set for future years.

Health Services: Young People

Crispin Blunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what system is in place to monitor the (a) results and (b) effectiveness of (i) units set up to care for young people diagnosed with eating disorders and chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis and (ii) other psychiatric and psychological services sponsored by his Department.

Daniel Poulter: Since 2010, the Department has published three outcomes frameworks, for public health, adult social care and the NHS, and these are intended to provide a focus for action and improvement across the system.
	The independent Children and Young People's Health Outcomes Forum, which reported in July 2012, looked at the Outcomes Frameworks from a children and young people's perspective and made recommendations, including on children and young people's mental health. Improving Children and Young People's Health Outcomes: a system wide response, published in February 2013, stated that
	“DH is investigating the feasibility and appropriateness (according to agreed criteria) of implementing all of the Forum's wide-ranging recommendations on the development of measures for the NHS, Public Health, Adult Social Care and Commissioning Outcomes Frameworks”.
	In addition, we have been working to develop the CAMHS (Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services) Minimum Data Set as a key driver to achieving better outcomes of care for children by providing comparative, linked data; that can be used to plan and commission services. The Data Set is currently in its implementation phase and the data has been specified for collection from all NHS organisations from April 2013.
	The Children and Young People's Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (CYP IAPT) project which we introduced in 2011 is about transforming mental health services for children and young people with mental health conditions. The project focuses on extending training to staff and service managers in CAMHS and embedding evidence based practice across services, making sure that the whole service, not just the trainee therapists, use session-by-session outcome monitoring which supports collaborative practice with clients and focuses on improving their outcomes. In the longer term the intention is to include CYP IAPT data in the CAMHS Minimum Data Set.

Hospitals: Waiting Lists

Gloria De Piero: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time was for an operation in (a) Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, (b) Nottingham University Hospitals Trust and (c) England in each of the last four (i) quarters and (ii) years.

Anna Soubry: The information available is shown in the following tables:
	
		
			 Average (median) time waited (in weeks) for patients whose treatment required an admission to hospital during the month (admitted adjusted referral to treatment pathways) 
			  2009 
			  February March April May June July August September October November December 
			 (a) Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust 11.0 9.4 9.5 11.0 10.7 11.1 9.7 12.2 10.9 10.0 10.2 
			 (b) Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust 6.4 6.6 6.0 7.7 7.7 7.1 7.4 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.2 
			 (c) England 8.7 7.7 7.7 8.1 8.0 7.8 7.9 8.3 8.1 7.9 7.7 
		
	
	
		
			  2010 
			  January February March April May June July August September October November December 
			 (a) Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust 11.1 11.4 10.0 9.9 10.1 9.2 10.7 8.9 9.6 10.3 9.1 9.2 
		
	
	
		
			 (b) Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust 8.3 8.6 8.5 8.9 8.6 8.3 8.4 9.1 8.7 8.7 8.5 8.6 
			 (c) England 8.7 9.1 8.0 8.0 8.4 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.7 8.7 8.3 7.9 
		
	
	
		
			  2011 
			  January February March April May June July August September October November December 
			 (a) Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust 11.1 10.4 10.8 9.4 10.4 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.8 10.2 10.8 9.5 
			 (b) Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust 9.4 9.8 8.0 7.6 8.2 8.7 8.0 8.2 8.1 8.6 8.3 7.5 
			 (c) England 9.1 9.0 7.9 7.7 8.4 8.7 8.2 8.1 8.8 8.4 8.1 7.8 
		
	
	
		
			  2012 
			  January February March April May June July August September October November December 
			 (a) Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust 10.7 10.6 10.1 9.5 9.9 9.8 10.5 10.7 12.7 12.2 11.0 9.9 
			 (b) Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust 8.7 8.5 8.7 8.7 9.5 10.6 9.5 8.8 9.9 9.3 9.1 . 9.2 
			 (c) England 8.8 8.7 8.1 8.1 8.4 8.4 8.5 8.3 8.8 8.6 8.3 8.0 
		
	
	
		
			  January 2013 
			 (a) Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust 10.7 
			 (b) Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust 10.7 
			 (c) England 9.2 
			 Note: Data is not collected quarterly, data is collected monthly. Admitted pathways are those completed (patients who started treatment) during the month. Source: Department for Health Referral to Treatment Waiting times return

Infant Mortality: Bradford

George Galloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  what steps he is taking to reduce the rate of infant mortality in Bradford;
	(2)  what assessment he has made of the rate of infant mortality in Bradford;
	(3)  what assessment he has made of the possible link between child mortality and poverty levels in Bradford.

Daniel Poulter: The infant mortality rate for Bradford, deaths under one year, is higher than in England, with 7.5 infant deaths per 1,000 live births in 2009-11, compared to a rate of 4.4 deaths per 1,000 live births in England for the same period. The higher rate in Bradford to some extent reflects the higher level of deprivation, Bradford is ranked 26 out of 326 local authorities on the English Indices of Deprivation, rank 1 being the most deprived.
	We have given a high priority to early year's issues, including reducing the inequalities in infant mortality. The evidence-based Healthy Child Programme is the key programme for pregnant women, mothers and children. It seeks to prevent problems during pregnancy, at birth and in the early years, and help reduce health inequalities. We are increasing by 50% the number of health visitors and doubling the number of places on the Family Nurse Partnership programme to 13,000 by 2015. This programme offers support to at-risk, first-time young parents from early pregnancy until the child is two years old.
	Infant mortality is an indicator in both the NHS and Public Health outcomes framework. The transfer of public health responsibilities to local government will improve the responsiveness of public health to local challenges and needs. Public Health England will provide national leadership and nationwide expertise on public health issues, including work on tackling health inequalities in the early years. Infant mortality and child mortality link to poverty, as noted by Professor Sir Michael Marrnot in his strategic review of health inequalities, “Fair Society, Healthy Lives” (2010). Child mortality covers deaths from ages' one to 17 years. In Bradford, the child mortality rate was 23.6 deaths per 100,000 of people in the same age group for 2009-11. This compares with a rate of 13.7 per 100,000 for England for the same period.
	We recognise the importance of tackling poor health outcomes among children and young people. We established a Children and Young Peoples Health Outcomes Forum to consider these issues, and recently launched a pledge to improve health of children and young people, improve services from pregnancy to adolescence and beyond and reduce avoidable deaths, as part of our response to the recommendations of the Forum. The Royal Colleges, health organisations and other relevant bodies have signed up to this pledge.

NHS Commissioning Board

Andrew Gwynne: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 25 January 2013, Official Report, column 489W, on the NHS Commissioning Board, how he intends to hold the NHS Commissioning Board to account for fulfilling its statutory duties to (a) promote innovation, (b) give regard to guidance issued by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and (c) uphold patient rights to technologies positively appraised by NICE; and if he will make it his policy to issue an annual report on his assessment of the Board's progress.

Daniel Poulter: The Health and Social Care Act 2012 makes it clear that:
	The NHS Commissioning Board must publish a business plan each year, setting out how it intends to carry out its functions, as well as to deliver the objectives and requirements set out in the mandate to the Board;
	The Board must publish a report at the end of each year saying how it has performed;
	The Secretary of State must then publish an assessment of the Board's performance; and
	The Board must have regard to National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Quality Standards.
	With regard to the first point, the mandate includes an objective on freeing the national health service to innovate, in order to get the best outcomes for patients.
	Regulations also provide that the relevant health body, whether the Board or clinical commissioning groups must fund drugs and treatments that have been positively appraised by NICE. This right is enshrined in the NHS constitution.
	Besides these legal requirements, there will be an ongoing sponsorship relationship between the Department and the Board, which will be outlined in a framework agreement. In particular, the Secretary of State will hold regular formal accountability meetings with the Chair of the Board and the minutes of these meetings will be published. The purpose of these meetings is to hold the Board to account. This includes ensuring the Board meets its duties to promote innovation, give regard to guidance issued by NICE, and uphold patient rights to technology positively appraised by NICE.

NHS: Disclosure of Information

Stephen Barclay: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer by Sir David Nicholson to Question 187 given in evidence to the Committee of Public Accounts on 18 March 2013, when his Department expects to (a) have identified former staff of the NHS who have been subject to a gagging clause and (b) written to such people to explain that the gagging clause will not be enforced.

Daniel Poulter: The coalition Government have been consistently clear that nothing within a contract of employment or compromise agreement should prevent an individual from speaking out about issues such as patient care and safety, or anything else that could be in the wider public interest in accordance with the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA).
	Former national health service employees who feel they may be subject to a confidentiality “gagging” clause are protected under the PIDA regulations. Appropriately drafted confidentiality clauses, can be a legitimate mechanism for protecting the interests of both employer and employee as long as nothing in the agreement seeks to prevent, or has the effect of preventing, individuals from speaking out in the public interest in accordance with PIDA.
	However, any clause that is in contravention of the PIDA regulations are void and cannot prevent someone from speaking out about issues such as patient care and safety, or anything else that could be in the wider public interest in accordance with PIDA.
	Former employees are encouraged to initially seek professional support and advice on their particular case from the Whistleblowing helpline. In parallel, the Department is considering how it may further communicate with employers on the issue of former employees who may have been party to a compromise agreement that may have included a confidentiality clause.

NHS: Disclosure of Information

Charlotte Leslie: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  who will adjudicate in cases where there is a dispute as to whether or not it is appropriate to remove a confidentiality clause from an NHS employee's severance agreement;
	(2)  what steps he will take to provide retrospective protection for former NHS employees who break confidentiality clauses in their severance payments;
	(3)  whether his proposed banning of confidentiality clauses from severance agreements in the NHS will apply to private sector providers of NHS services;
	(4)  if his proposed banning of confidentiality clauses from severance agreements in the NHS will apply in cases in which whistleblowing was not the central reason for the severance agreement;
	(5)  whether the banning of confidentiality clauses from severance agreements in the NHS will apply in cases in which the £20,000 threshold for referral to his Department is not met.

Daniel Poulter: The coalition Government has been consistently clear that nothing within a contract of employment or compromise agreement should prevent an individual from speaking out about issues such as patient care and safety, or anything else that could be in the wider public interest in accordance with the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.
	The Department has not banned confidentiality clauses per se. Compromise agreements, which include appropriately drafted confidentiality clauses, can be a legitimate mechanism for protecting the interests of both employer and employee as long as nothing in the agreement seeks to prevent, or has the effect of preventing, individuals from speaking out in the public interest.
	Although the use and specific content of a compromise agreement is a matter for the relevant employer and is confidential to the parties concerned, some NHS employers have used such agreements that have not been as clear on the issue of speaking out in the public interest as they should be. This has resulted in some staff who have felt 'gagged' and therefore worried that they would not be allowed to speak out about their concerns after they have signed the agreement and left their employment.
	HM Treasury do not sign off 'compromise agreements' neither does the Department of Health. The Department and Treasury do not see the content of compromise agreements or the confidentiality clauses they may contain. The Department and the Treasury review the business cases that are put forward by employers in support of making a special severance payment. The Department will not support settlements, regardless of the amount concerned, where making such a payment is not in the public interest. This includes any case which may involve a potential whistleblowing issue.
	In future, the Government will require that where confidentiality clauses are used in compromise agreements that they include an explicit clause that makes it clear beyond doubt to the individual concerned that nothing in the agreement will prevent them from speaking out on issues in the public interest as covered by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA).
	Former NHS employees who feel they may be subject to a confidentiality "gagging" clause are protected under PIDA. Any clause that is in contravention of the PIDA regulations are void. Former employees are encouraged to initially seek professional support and advice on their particular case from the whistleblowing helpline. In parallel, the Department is considering how it may further communicate with employers on the issue of former employees.

NHS: Managers

Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  what measures are in place to remove from post NHS managers (a) that fail to meet performance targets, (b) have overseen healthcare services which put patients' lives at risk and (c) have overseen financial mismanagement of a NHS organisation.
	(2)  what measures are in place to prevent NHS managers (a) that fail to meet performance targets, (b) have overseen healthcare services which put patients' lives at risk and (c) have overseen financial mismanagement of a NHS organisation from gaining further employment in the NHS; and if he will consider introducing a baring scheme to prohibit such individuals from working in NHS management;
	(3)  what steps he is taking to introduce new measures to (a) remove failing NHS managers, (b) monitor the performance of NHS managers, (c) monitor the financial management of NHS managers and (d) issue sanctions against failing NHS managers.

Daniel Poulter: All those working for the national health service have personal responsibility for the quality of care they provide, with good leadership critical to ensuring that patients receive excellent care. The vast majority of NHS leaders and managers work tirelessly to get the best possible care for the people they serve.
	However, the NHS does have systems in place to deal with the small number of managers who fail to meet the appropriate safety, quality, performance or financial standards.
	Employers are required to incorporate the Code of Conduct for NHS Managers in the employment contracts of chief executives and other directors. NHS managers are personally responsible for meeting the requirements of their employment contracts. Local governance systems are in place to hold NHS managers to account for the terms of their job role. If there are failures to meet the standards set, it is for the employer to decide what actions to take, including the possibility of additional training and support, or termination of contract.
	In support of this, Monitor, the NHS Trust Development Authority and Care Quality Commission work together to provide independent regulatory oversight of the safety, quality, performance and financial management of NHS providers in England.
	Monitor has and will continue to have intervention powers in relation to NHS foundation trusts and can remove directors from the board in cases of significant financial or service underperformance.
	The Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry provides graphic illustrations of lessons that can be learned from failure of individuals, the employing trust and system regulators to put patients first. It recommends a number of actions relating to NHS managers, including a mechanism for barring failing managers. These are being considered as part of the Government's response, which will be published shortly.

Pay

Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  how much was paid to officials in (a) his Department and (b) its non-departmental public bodies in bonuses and other payments in addition to salary in each of the last five years; how many officials received such payments; and what the monetary value was of the 20 largest payments made in each year;
	(2)  what allowances and subsidies in addition to salary were available to officials in (a) his Department and (b) its non-departmental public bodies in each of the last five years; and what the monetary value was of such payments and allowances in each such year.

Daniel Poulter: For the Department, information requested about non-consolidated performance related payments (NCPRPs) (formerly known as bonuses), special bonuses and distinction awards for medical doctors, paid to civil servants on the Department's payroll is given in the following tables.
	
		
			  Total annual cost (£) Total number of awards(1) 
			 2008-09 2,923,816 1,530 
			 2009-10 2,665,217 1,372 
			 2010-11 2,013,966 1,174 
			 2011-12 1,481,133 1,485 
		
	
	
		
			 £ 
			  How much was paid to officials in non- departmental public bodies in bonuses and other payments in addition to salary 
			 Name of organisation and type of payment 2012-13 to end of February 2013 2011-12 
			 Monitor 7,350 14,500 
			 (1 )NHS CB: The Commissioning Board became an Executive non-departmental public body on 1 October 2012 and will not be effectively operational until 1 April 2013. The NHS CB is undertaking a significant programme of staff transition and recruitment, and during this financial year most staff have been working on a secondment and interim basis. Therefore it is not possible to give meaningful figures for 2012-13. 
		
	
	The information on allowances and subsidies available to officials in the Department's non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) is set out in the following table.
	
		
			  Total annual cost (£) Total number of awards(1) 
			 2012-13 to February 1,206,364 921 
			 (1) A civil servant may be entitled to receive more than one type of bonus within a given year. Source: Department of Payroll Systems 
		
	
	
		
			 Highest 20 awards in the Department for each year 
			  £ 
			 2008-09 (1)55,098 
			  (1)55,098 
			  (2)49,004 
			  (1)31,486 
			  (1)31,486 
			  26,775 
			  26,163 
			  23,889 
			  21,464 
			  19,500 
			  19,087 
			  19,012 
			  18,639 
			  18,162 
			  18,000 
			  17,431 
			  17,408 
			  17,094 
			  16,628 
			  15,030 
			   
			   
			 2009-10 (1)75,796 
			  (1)41,943 
			  (1)30,494 
			  (2)27,500 
			  (1)15,980 
			  15,000 
			  15,000 
		
	
	
		
			  15,000 
			  15,000 
			  13,271 
			  12,500 
			  12,500 
			  12,500 
			  12,500 
			  12,500 
			  12,500 
			  12,500 
			  12,500 
			  12,500 
			  12,500 
			   
			   
			 2010-11 (1)75,796 
			  (2)27,500 
			  (1)12,784 
			  10,000 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			   
			   
			 2011-12 (1)75,796 
			  (2)36,000 
			  17,500 
			  17,000 
			  (1)12,784 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
		
	
	
		
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			   
			   
			 2012-13 to February 17,500 
			  17,000 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			  8,500 
			 (1 )Distinction awards for medical doctors (2) Contractual obligation—bonus agreed with one individual, disclosed in previous parliamentary questions and other published information. Source: DH Payroll Systems 
		
	
	Since 2008, the Department has reduced the cost of overall expenditure on its annual allowances and subsidies. Some of these payments relate to allowances paid on a 'reserved rights' basis. Current available allowances include such payments as:
	Private Office allowance (in lieu of overtime);
	Excess fares—for civil servants who are relocated at the Department's instigation; and
	Detached duty payments—covering costs of living away from home while temporarily posted to a new location.
	Information about the annual costs of allowances and subsidies for the Department's civil servants has been taken from the Department's Payroll System and is set out in the following table.
	
		
			  Total cost of allowances and subsidies (£) 
			 2008-09 1,121,050 
			 2009-10 1,184,028 
			 2010-11 1,100,289 
			 2011-12 832,985 
			 2012-13(1) 779,084 
			 (1) Data for 2012-13 accounts for payments up to the end February 2013. All other years are the full financial years. 
		
	
	The information on the total cost of bonuses and other payments to officials in the Department's non-departmental public bodies, for the years 2011-12 and 2012 to end of February 2013 is set out. in the following table. Information for the previous three years and information about how many officials received such payments and the monetary value of the 20 largest
	payments made in each year cannot be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost.
	
		
			 £ 
			   How much was paid to officials in non-departmental public bodies in bonuses and other payments in addition to salary 
			 Name organisation Type of payment 2012-13 to end of February 2013 2011-12 
			 Care Quality Commission Overtime 758,408 887,781 
			  Bonuses 0 £301,406 
			     
			 NHS Commissioning Board (NHS CB)  (1)— Not in existence 
			     
			 Health Protection Agency Clinical Excellence Awards 2,856,624 3,336,169 
			  Overtime 972,725 985,986 
			     
			 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) Bonus payments 2,000 5,500 
			  Overtime 22,709 14,227 
			  Records Management Project 0 35,112 
			     
			 Human Tissue Authority  0 0 
		
	
	
		
			  What allowances and subsidies in addition to salary were available to officials in each of the last five years What was the monetary value of such payments and allowances in each such year (£) 
			 Name of organisation 2012-13 to February 2011-12 2010-11 2009-10 2008-09 2012-13 to February 2011-12 2010-11 2009-10 2008-09 
			 Care Quality Commission Home workers allowance, Essential Car User allowance, Zonal Allowance (now consolidated into pay), Pension Compensation allowance, Transport allowance 1,107,680 1,977,498 2,112,989 Not in existence Not in existence 
			            
			 NHS Commissioning Board (NHS CB) (1)— Not in existence (1)— Not in existence 
			            
			 Health Protection Agency Geographic Allowance, on call allowance 7,379,314 7,535,586 8,127,506 7,449,396 Not available in MINT Payroll reports 
			            
			 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA)(2) Only one allowance has been available in each of the last five years—an out of hours on call media handling allowance 3,750 3,750 3,750 3,750 3,750 
			            
			 Human Tissue Authority Gym Subsidy Gym Subsidy, London Weighting Gym Subsidy, Staff Allowance 1,018 2,386 3,913 5,017 7,609 
			            
			 Monitor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 (1) NHS CB: The Commissioning Board became an Executive non-departmental public body on 1 October 2012 and will not be effectively operational until 1 April 2013. The NHS CB is undertaking a significant programme of staff transition and recruitment, and during this financial year most staff have been working on a secondment or interim basis. Therefore, it is not possible to give accurate figures for 2012-13. (2) HFEA: The monetary value for this allowance, which applies in each such year, is as follows £312.50 per month/£3,750 per annum (one person).

Public Expenditure

Christopher Leslie: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the Budget 2013 Red Book, Table 2.5, which capital projects are no longer proceeding as a consequence of the underspend by his Department in 2012-13.

Daniel Poulter: Table 2.5 of the Budget 2013 Red Book shows the difference between Budget 2012 plans and latest forecast of expenditure for 2012-13. For the Department of Health, the table shows an estimated Capital Departmental Expenditure Limits underspend of £0.8 billion against the Budget 2012 plans.
	This underspend has arisen mainly because of savings in central capital schemes (including Connecting for Health) and slippage on capital spending plans in the national health service. No. capital projects have been stopped or delayed specifically to achieve this underspend.
	The Department will set out its spending for the year in detail in its annual accounts in the usual way.

Social Services

David Ward: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  whether his Department has made an estimate of costs associated with local authorities having introduced restrictions on the eligibility criteria for social care;
	(2)  what support his Department has offered to help local authorities maintain current thresholds for Fair Access to Care criteria;
	(3)  with reference to his Department's White Paper, Caring for Our Future, what steps he is taking to introduce a new assessment and eligibility framework for social care.

Norman Lamb: Under the current legal framework, local authorities are free to set their eligibility threshold for adult social care services. Local authorities base their own threshold in response to local needs and circumstances. We have not made any estimate of the costs associated with local authorities having introduced restrictions on the eligibility criteria for social care.
	The Government has committed to introducing a national minimum eligibility threshold for adult social care. Provisions to this effect were included in the draft Care and Support Bill, and subject to the passage of legislation, this will be introduced from April 2015. The Government will determine the level of the threshold as part of the Spending Review, which we will announce later in the year. Local authorities will be free to set their eligibility threshold at a more generous level but will not be able to tighten them beyond the national minimum threshold.
	The Government also gave a commitment in the White Paper “Caring for our future”, that we will develop and test options for a potential new assessment and eligibility framework. A Steering Group involving all relevant stakeholders will be established in the summer. The Steering Group will develop new models and these will be evaluated over a number of years. The Steering Group will then put proposals to Government and we will consider the feasibility of implementing these.
	We know that the last Spending Review provided local government with a challenging settlement. This is why we took the decision to prioritise adult social care, and provide extra funding for local authorities to help in maintaining access to services. Since then, we have provided local authorities with additional resources for social care. However, it is ultimately for local authorities to choose how best to use their available funding.
	But we cannot improve care and support by putting ever more money into the system. We have already seen examples of local authorities redesigning services to find more efficient ways of working. Many local authorities are innovating and achieving much greater integration between health and care services, thereby improving care for people and optimising use of resources available.

Education and Skills Act 2008

Dominic Raab: To ask the Secretary of State for Education 
	(1)  when he plans to bring sections 2 and 4 of the Education and Skills Act 2008 into force;
	(2)  when the Government plans to bring Part 1 of the Education and Skills Act 2008 into force;
	(3)  when he plans to lay the regulations designated under section 4(2) of the Education and Skills Act 2008 before Parliament; and when he intends such regulations to come into force.

Matthew Hancock: holding answer 19 March 2013
	Part 1 of the Education and Skills Act 2008 (ESA) places a duty on young people to participate in education or training until they are 18 or have completed a prescribed Level 3 qualification. Section 2 sets out the duty to participate and section 4 sets out the definition of full-time education or training.
	We intend to commence the majority of Part 1 of ESA from 28 June 2013 to apply to all young people in England until the end of the academic year in which they turn 17; and from 26 June 2015 to their 18(th) birthday.
	However, we have confirmed that we will not commence two elements of Part 1 of ESA. These are the duties on employers (in chapter 3 of Part 1) and the 'enforcement provisions' for young people who do not participate (in chapters 4 and 5 of Part 1). These will remain on statute and we will keep the need to commence them under review.
	The legislation makes provision for some elements to be specified in secondary legislation, including section 4(2) on the definition of full-time education. We carried out a full public consultation on the policy that will underpin the regulations and our response is available at:
	http://www.education.gov.uk/childrenandyoungpeople/youngpeople/participation/rpa/a00210946/consultation-response
	Copies of this report will be placed in the House Libraries.
	The regulations designated under section 4(2) will be laid before Parliament in early summer 2013 and will come into force before 28 June 2013.

Free School Meals

Stephen Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he expects to announce which claimants of universal credit will be entitled to free school meals.

David Laws: holding answer 18 March 2013
	I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 4 March 213, Official Report, column 839W.

European Convention on Human Rights

David Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether work is being undertaken and resources devoted by his Department to plans for the UK to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights; and whether an impact assessment has been made in respect of the consequences of such a withdrawal.

Damian Green: As set out in the coalition agreement, the Government remains committed to the European convention on human rights and has no plans to denounce or withdraw from it.

Offenders

Emily Thornberry: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what proportion of offenders who breached the conditions of their caution were subsequently charged by the Crown Prosecution Service in each quarter since 2008.

Oliver Heald: I have been asked to reply.
	The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) data shows that a total of 3,157 offenders who breached their conditional caution were subsequently charged by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). A quarterly breakdown of the actions taken by the CPS, in the event of an offender not complying with the terms of the conditional caution, is set out in the following table:
	
		
			 Quarter (financial years) Charge and request full file No prosecution Conditions varied Total breached conditional cautions referred to CPS Non compliance rate (percentage) Compliance rate (percentage) 
			 2008-09       
			 Q1 125 30 11 166 8.3 91.7 
			 Q2 193 42 20 255 12.7 87.3 
			 Q3 157 30 21 208 9.8 90.2 
			 Q4 193 39 29 261 11.6 88.4 
			        
			 2009-10       
			 Q1 196 43 21 260 11.9 88.1 
			 Q2 229 53 27 309 15.6 84.4 
			 Q3 249 55 27 331 15.6 84.4 
			 Q4 199 41 30 270 13.9 86.1 
			        
			 2010-11       
			 Q1 157 37 32 226 12.3 87.7 
			 Q2 197 48 39 284 15.4 84.6 
			 Q3 152 34 46 232 13.7 86.3 
			 Q4 178 39 38 255 16.2 83.8 
			        
			 2011-12       
			 Q1 161 31 38 230 16.1 83.9 
			 Q2 163 54 29 246 18.7 81.3 
			 Q3 150 32 31 213 18.6 81.4 
			 Q4 156 38 29 223 20.5 79.5 
			        
			 2012-13       
			 Q1 111 28 20 159 16.5 83.5 
			 Q2 108 40 28 176 17.8 82.2 
			 Q3 83 30 13 126 13.8 86.2

Personal Injury: Compensation

Meg Munn: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice 
	(1)  whether he plans to make an assessment of the changes being made in April 2013 to the road traffic accident portal before introducing further reforms;
	(2)  what steps he has taken to improve usage by insurers of the road traffic accident portal.

Helen Grant: There are no current plans to make an assessment of the forthcoming changes to the Road Traffic Accident Personal Injury (RTA) scheme. The Government is prepared to review and assess the effectiveness of the scheme should evidence be provided to demonstrate that this is necessary. However, the Government does not wish to commit to a formal review at this stage.
	As part of the forthcoming extension of the RTA scheme, incentives have been provided for both insurers and claimants to keep claims within the scheme through to settlement. These include provisions in the Pre-Action Protocols which will support the extended scheme, and the introduction of a revised and expanded scheme of fixed recoverable costs.

Personal Injury: Compensation

Meg Munn: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice 
	(1)  if he will give consideration to requiring medical reports before payment of compensation can be made in personal injury claims;
	(2)  if he will bring forward proposals to oblige insurers to share data to help reduce the incidents of fraudulent claims;
	(3)  if he will give consideration to the accreditation of medical agencies and reporting doctors in personal injury cases.

Helen Grant: The Government consultation on 'reducing the number and cost of whiplash claims' closed on 8 March 2013. The requirement for completed medical reports prior to compensation being paid, the importance of shared fraud data and accredited medics were all raised as issues by stakeholders during the consultation period. Ministry of Justice officials are now evaluating all the submissions received and a response outlining the way forward will be issued in due course.

Probation

Julie Elliott: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment he has made of the effects of his proposed reform of probation services on re-offending rates for people serving fewer than 12 months.

Jeremy Wright: On 22 February the Ministry of Justice's consultation on plans for reforming the way in which offenders are rehabilitated in the community closed.
	Through our proposed reforms we want to address the fact that offenders released from custodial sentences of less than 12 months are among the most highly prolific offender groups. In 2010 57.6% of the short sentenced offenders released from prison reoffended within a year and there is currently no statutory support for those offenders sentenced to less than 12 months in custody.
	Our proposed reforms will help reduce reoffending by opening up rehabilitation services to a more diverse market, using payment by results to encourage providers to focus on outcomes, and by making the whole system more efficient, so that we can extend rehabilitative provision to this most prolific group of offenders.
	We will respond to the consultation and bring forward detailed plans in due course.